This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: malloc probes for glibc 2.19
- From: Will Newton <will dot newton at linaro dot org>
- To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Cc: libc-alpha <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 09:07:30 +0100
- Subject: Re: malloc probes for glibc 2.19
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <ork3w94at9 dot fsf at livre dot localdomain> <ormwolw1w5 dot fsf at livre dot home> <CANu=Dmj7R8cRc8+jtkfFsi=SoFcew-v_9hV2pgRbBoqE+hXJpg at mail dot gmail dot com>
Resending with the correct address for libc-alpha.
On 12 September 2013 08:35, Will Newton <will.newton@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 14 August 2013 01:29, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Since the tree is open for changes for 2.19, I've updated the malloc
>> probes patchset. The current version of the patchset is in branch
>> lxoliva/malloc-probes-bz742038.
>>
>> On Sep 4, 2012, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I was asked to introduce probes in malloc to aid in debugging cases in
>>> which our memory allocation code performs poorly.
>>
>>> I've grouped the probes in separate patches, in which the probes are
>>> logically connected.
>>
>> Each probe is documented in the manual, under a note that indicates
>> they're not part of libc's stable ABI.
>>
>> Ok to install?
>
> There seems to be some disagreement as to whether it's Systemtap or
> SystemTap, but I don't know if it matters too much.
>
> Should the mallopt probe for M_MMAP_MAX pass mp_.n_mmaps_max instead?
>
> Otherwise looks ok to me.
>
> --
> Will Newton
> Toolchain Working Group, Linaro
--
Will Newton
Toolchain Working Group, Linaro